The American Spectator : Wall Street Imbecility

Text Size

Wall Street Imbecility

By R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. on 2.12.09 @ 6:08AM

A decline in standards catches up with our faux capitalists.

WASHINGTON -- The phenomenon of opulent Wall Street investment wizards contributing in large numbers to the Democratic Party, often to the left-wing of the Democratic Party, has until recent years struck me as perverse to the utmost. During the 2008 election cycle, 60% of the donations made by employees of the top Wall Street firms went to Democrats. Surely these Wall Street donors had to realize that the left wing of the Democratic Party, which dominates the party, is utterly ignorant of the economic system that has allowed the Wall Streeters their opulence. Yet as the imbecility of Citigroup and AIG and all the rest is revealed, it has become obvious that those who write checks for Madame Pelosi and for the enthusiasms of Al Gore actually know very little about free-market capitalism. If they did they would have realized that in capitalism the bubble always bursts and the chain letter always runs out of suckers.

Reviewing the fall of these impossibly leveraged investment firms, it is apparent that their leading executives had no respect for prudent risk management or for prudence in general. Lending standards were foreign to them. Their laxness would have been spotted easily in decades past by prudent lenders. Yet for several decades now standards of all sorts have been wasting away, for instance, entertainment standards, intellectual standards, investment standards. Where there was once Ella Fitzgerald there is now Britney Spears. Russell Kirk has been replaced by Arianna Huffington. Walter Wriston gives way to Robert Rubin. Obviously when investment standards are abused the consequences are more immediate than in the realm of entertainment and intellect. Financial loss is real and cannot be denied for long.

From our vantage point in early 2009, we can see that critics of Alan Greenspan were right when they said he had dropped interest rates too far from 2001 to 2004. But what about the products that the Wall Street wizards were selling? They were called -- in hushed tones of awe -- "complex derivatives." Actually they were sausages stuffed with junk loans, mediocre loans, good loans, and sufficient spice to sucker the credulous. These sausages were sold all over the world and every time a transaction was made those in on the transaction made money, even the vegetarians, even the economic ignoramuses. It was a kind of gigantic chain letter. Government regulators did not take heed. The politicians did not take heed. Those investment bankers who did and who spoke out were ignored.

As one of the now discredited wizards, former CEO of Citigroup Chuck Prince, put it in an interview with the Financial Times: "When the music stops, in terms of liquidity, things will be complicated. But as long as the music is playing, you've got to get up and dance. We're still dancing." He said that in July of 2007. He was off the dance floor by early November. There was a time when such insouciance about excess "liquidity" would be unthinkable for a responsible Wall Street banker. Yet as I say, in recent years there have not been a lot of responsible officers in the Wall Street investment houses and those who were responsible were not listened to.

On Wall Street, in London, and wherever else the madness took hold, huge salaries and bonuses were heaved around, even after the bubble had burst and the chain letter was seen for what it was. Now my worry is that the rogues of Wall Street will be replaced by the rogues of Washington. A fundamental problem of our time is a widespread insouciance to prudent standards. Such standards would have restrained the opportunists who danced when they should have practiced due diligence. Now let us hope the politicians will return to prudent standards in fashioning their resolution of the financial crisis. Thus far there is little reason for optimism.

About the Author

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. is the founder and editor in chief of The American Spectator. He is the author of the forthcoming The Death of Liberalism, published by Thomas Nelson Inc. His previous books include the New York Times bestseller Boy Clinton: the Political Biography; The Impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton; The Liberal Crack-Up; The Conservative Crack-Up; Public Nuisances; The Future that Doesn't Work: Social Democracy's Failure in Britain; Madame Hillary: The Dark Road to the White House; The Clinton Crack-Up; and After the Hangover: The Conservatives' Road to Recovery.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (103) | Leave a comment

John Turner| 2.12.09 @ 6:48AM

http://spectator.org/archives/2009/02/12/wall-street-imbecility/print

Last 2 paragraphs of the column are repeated.

jwt

adk| 2.12.09 @ 7:03AM

"I repeat myself when under stress, I repeat myself when under stress, I repeat ..."

Wingnut| 2.12.09 @ 7:14AM

Ok, here's capitalism...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/Pyramid_of_Capitalist_System.gif

Now, these "prudent standards" would probably be to make servitude-infested pyramid schemes like capitalism... illegal, yes? In fact, the only "prudent standards" that the planet should adopt... is to outlaw economies and ownership. Without capitalism's phenomenon called ownership (of money and titles), there is nothing to rat-race-over. And without rat-racing, pyramid schemes like capitalism cannot form and "all men are created equal" actually happens and stays that way. In capitalism's pyramid scheme system (see back of USA dollar for pyramid scheme symbol), all men are created at the pyramid layer and with the cronies, good name, opportunities, and bankroll... of their parents place on the pyramid at time of birthing. You know it, i know it, the dog knows it. The right thing to do... is outlaw economies and ownership, which disallows one-upsmanship (capitalizing), which will collapse the free marketeers felony pyramid scheme faster than its falling on its own(ed). Look to the USA military survival/supply system and the USA public library system... for decent monetary-discriminationless socialist systems. Wingnut - Christian Communalist+

Bill| 2.12.09 @ 9:10AM

Wingnut.. did you lose the screw to be tightened to?

targeted4exstinction| 2.12.09 @ 9:24AM

Wingnut, I like the library, use it, support it. But seriously it is a rather dull, drab enterprise all and all. And, what really do they produce ? They circulate books. I am not talking about the major libraries of the nation, which are also part museum and university in may ways. I like the library and also the bookstore, We have all kinds of the latter. The for profit bookstores have a place. One just has to walk in to see the difference. The bookstores obviously are more lively and bustling places. They manage a huge array of goods. Many a hardworking, often leftist writer makes a nice living thanks to free enterprise and bookstores. Wake up. In this era self actualization crossed with the pleasure principle. What now dominates all corners is this strange, deranged hybrid that seems to be in all seats of power and makes all the money. We need some defense against these creatures. Who will provide it ? The politicians ? They are among these creatures.

H. Wood Bigshot| 2.12.09 @ 10:40AM

C'mon! How could anyone with half a brain not have seen the massing of Wall Streeters to the Democrats years ago.

Jeez, are conservatives really that stupid? It ain't about the 'business' they are in. It is about the cultural and moral control of the direction of the country. And these Wall Street Irishmen are now, and have always been, in total agreement with the left wing of the Democrats.

For crying out loud. If one more half-witted conservative pundit wonders why, oh why, is Wall Street full of liberal Democrats, we give up.

Thomas| 2.12.09 @ 10:42AM

The only thing missing in today's capitalism, is ownership. In most investment banks, indeed in most major businesses in this country, the people who run the company have little or no ownership stake. The are simply mercenaries. They negotiate the maximum salary that the market will bear and then negotiate themselves golden parachutes. Their only real concern is getting out and getting their money before the firm becomes insolvent.

In the past, large corporations were actually owner buy an individual or a family. The company bore the name of the owner. The people controlling the company had a sense of proprity and pride in ownership of a successful company. This has changed. Now control of these companies is placed into the hands of hirelings, very well paid hirelings, who have no loyalty to the company, or its stockholders, beyond a paycheck. Until that changes, large corporations will continue to operate as they do now, making the maximum amount of money for the CEO's, CFO's, and board members and screw the small sockholder and the rest of the employees.

The reason why large capitalism firms pay enormous amounts of money to Democrat politicians and not to Republicans is simple.
Bribery. Republicans have long been the friends of capitalism.Democrats have proven over and over that they are anti-capitalist by their unswerving support for unions, environmentalist and socialists. Dealmaking is the heart of capitalism and that is why money is given to Democrats; to make a deal. Unfortunately, politicians in general and Democrats in particular can not be trusted to stay bought. As the leaders of American Capitalism are finding out.

Dwight Thorne| 2.12.09 @ 10:54AM

The old paradigm of Communism and Capitalism has died in 1989 and 2009 respectively[RIP+].

The issue is not speaking of systems and "standards" - but of American institutions such as Federal Reserve, SEC that failed to do their job.

Jack Hughes| 2.12.09 @ 12:00PM

H. Wood Bigshot complains about the Wall Street Irishmen - is he referring to Mr. Madoff? Mr. Goldman? Mr. Sachs? Mr. Solomon? Mr. Lehman?

Todd| 2.12.09 @ 12:59PM

Are wingnut and jharp the same moron? Listen you piece of garbage, you are describing communism and as I recall that didn't turn out so well. Go back to Mother Jones and Progress First you commie idiot. Better yet, leave the country and go live in Cuba if you like communism so much.

L. Ross| 2.12.09 @ 1:24PM

Speaking of captains of industry getting out with golden parachutes, I just heard of a great idea that UPS uses. When senior executives there leave the company, they can't trade in their stock options for FIVE YEARS. This is to ensure they had the long term health of the company when they made their fiscal decisions. Best idea I've heard of.

ValricoJoe| 2.12.09 @ 2:16PM

The demise of Wal Street is due to the liberals operating there. A progressive has no fear of God, has no morals, ethics or standards and was not taught those things in college, or if they were it was done by progressive PhD's.

Capitalism is effective only when people have moral, character and honesty, typically found within the founding members of the firms or businesses. America's founding fathers wrote extensively about mans frailty and governance and how they need to be guided by strict internal morals.

Teaching history has been held from the public schools, slowly but steadily since President Wilson was in office. Prayer in school was eliminated, why? Because there shall be no moral code except the one presented by the government.

Capitalism is not the problem, socialism and unscrupulous people are.

H. Wood Bigshot| 2.12.09 @ 2:38PM

...read between the lines Jack...

Marc Jeric| 2.12.09 @ 2:50PM

Carter with his Community Redevelopment Act, enforced by threats of fines and prison by Frank and Dodds forced the banks to give mortgages to "underserved minorities" whose welfare checks and unemployment payments had to be considered as qualifying income. What are the bankers to do? Hide those mortgages in certificates mixed up with good ones and sell them to Fannie May and Freddie Mac. That fiasco is not capitalism - that is enforced socialism!

ruth| 2.12.09 @ 3:02PM

You mean 'prudent politicians' such as Dodd and Frank? Surely these two pillars of the community will clean up Wall Street's corruption.

Todd| 2.12.09 @ 3:06PM

ValricoJoe,
That is a really great comment to go along with the article. Take a look at the biggest crook to ever inhabit Wall Street, Mr. Bernie Maddof. Maddof was involved in all kind of liberal causes like helping to fund abortions and the like and was heavily involved in funding Democrat politicians. There is the mistaken belief that Wall Street is filled with conservatives but that is a hoax of the MSM. It is populated with former graduates of Ivy League schools who have been brainwashed into liberalism and rejected the moral code from God. Most of them only care about how much money they can grab for themselves and will go about it dishonestly if needs be of which George Soros is a good example. And now we have a known tax cheat as our Treasurer who has long abetted the ethical abuses on Wall Street by his liberal friends. The progressive dream of destroying capitalism in the US is now very close at hand thanks to the Maddof's and Geithner's of Wall Street.

Todd| 2.12.09 @ 3:41PM

We know for example Bob (at least according to him) was working there not too long ago, I imagine he fit in well with the other arrogant aholes there (many from Harvard no doubt) demanding million dollar bonuses for fooling people into buying their junk investments rated Triple A by the incompetent government credit agencies.

I heard the sales pitch myself at a number of meetings in 07 just before the implosion and it went a bit like this, "Its really complicated but since we are so damn smart (Ivy League degree) we were able to leverage the equity against the debt by insane levels to generate high returns. No need to worry though, the credit agency says everything is just peachy because the bubble has not blown up yet, just look at the last 5 years default rates.

Since these guys are master salesman, it was very seductive though in hindsight it looks very fishy. When all people are thinking about is how to generate higher returns than the other guy, greed will overcome any caution as long as you are given what you think are good reasons. What could sound better than a return of 15% per year on Triple A rated securities? And who in there right mind would actually go through the hundreds of papers to see what exactly the investments are and what the potential risks might be? Those people at Moody's surely must know what they are doing right? Maybe these people really are incredibly smart and have figured out how to beat the risk-reward return? As it says in the Bible, before the fall cometh pride.

Todd| 2.12.09 @ 3:55PM

I should say pride cometh before the fall

Jack Hughes| 2.12.09 @ 4:25PM

I have read between the lines, Mr. H. Wood Bigshot, and I have found a Wall St. Irishman - Mr. Stan O'Neill,former CEO of Merrill Lynch. Thanks for pointing out the oversight.

Alan Brooks| 2.12.09 @ 6:47PM

read Victor Davis Hanson's latest piece on exactly this subject.

clashseeker| 2.12.09 @ 8:03PM

They want more than money and the riches derived from it. The want power, maniacal power. They do not believe in God, so man rules, and they believe they are the greatest of all men ever to walk the earth. They resent most of all the men who gave us America, because they gave power to the average man to live free. This new " elite " can't stand this attitude. They must rule and create a world in their image. If all they did was buy yachts, sports cars, and fill their pools with diamonds, one could more easily live with them. They truly do want to be the masters of the universe. And these masters want us to be their slaves. So many words written and spoken since the election, yet still no battle plan to defeat these monsters that I can see. I want a battlefield to fight on. I want to take actions that hurt them. Where are the fighters ? Where is the General of the Save America Army ? Limbaugh ? Please.

Frank| 2.12.09 @ 8:19PM

Mr. Tyrrell, I have subscribed to the American Spectator intermittently since the mid '70's, and I think this is among your lesser efforts, in fact, the lower part of them.
You seem to have overlooked the power the federal gov't. wields in corporate America.

To explain events, you need to go to root causes, and if you think Wall Street acted like idiots, you are right. They were obliged to do so, and were rewarded as they did. Approve mortages for indigents? We'd better or forget favorable resolution on ANY tax or merger or other gov't. related issue. Plus, what the heck, the house price will double in 5 years thanks to Freddy and Fannie and even if we can't lay off all the risk to them, we are sure they won't let this game end. So what the hell, let's go ahead and write the credit swaps - that gives us cred at the table, which we'll bring with "voluntary" contributions from our higher level employees.

Sure, greed ruled at the same time. What do you expect from those who think they are cozy with the ultimate arbiters. And they're not ultimately the market, they're Barney Frank and all the Dem bureaucrats that Bush never replaced and the Republican congress never chose to confront.

Thinking clearly these days is tough business when it actually has to be done in public. There's this thing called political correctness. The consequences of clear thought and decisions can be quite dire, and corporate America has decided that if it is going to tank, it will be with the gov't. rather than in opposition to the gov't. That they end up failing either way, well, that's just the price we all pay.

H.Wood Bigshot| 2.12.09 @ 8:56PM

Good Lord Jack, you were right the first time!!

Read...between...the....lines....

Jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeez.............

Howard| 2.12.09 @ 10:06PM

I did get a chuckle when all of The Democratic Fat Cats, AKA Wall Street bankers went to Congress yesterday. In spite of their shelling out millions to Barney Frank and his minions, it was to no avail. They all bent over, grabbed their ankles and made out like Ned Beatty in Deliverance. Ouch!

ruth| 2.12.09 @ 10:30PM

A pox on all their houses. Todd, where is the brilliant, (legend in his own mind), Bob? Clashseeker, did you catch Rush's show today? Read (2/12) portions of his show on his website regarding taking back our country.

Todd| 2.12.09 @ 11:24PM

Ruth,
I referred Bob from another article (Peter Ferrara's excellent article yesterday) to this one but I guess he has some really important meetings to attend to apparently. Maybe AA, just guessing. If we take Bob at his word that he was some Wall Street bigshot, than it all makes perfect sense on why those arrogant jerks messed up so badly if Bob is typical of the way they think.
I can see Bob in some meeting going on and on about his stupid graphs while everyone else wonders when the hell he is going to shut up so they can go home already.

Wingnut| 2.13.09 @ 4:36AM

No, Todd, everyone wonders when YOU are going to shut up. Geez, why don't YOU MOVE to a blog for 11 yr olds... something more commensurate with your personal bashing and lack of awareness. My God! Address the issues raised instead of throwing tissy fits already, huh? We don't care AT ALL about your aimless concerns. GET ON SUBJECT already! Yikes! Man, I wouldn't even speak in public AT ALL if I spoke as aimlessly as you. Your wife must beat you, huh? Oh wait, you're no more than 11 years old, at least intellectually. BUY a clue already. Don't bother replying, you've already totally drenched the blogthread with your worthless spew. Do us all a favor... sit back, read instead of spew, and do some self-realization. You like personal bashing? There ya go. I'll give you back an 11 year old's post... maybe you can at least comprehend something this shallow and bashy. You sure as hell understand little else. Now shut up and think instead of sh*t up and stink. God... how embarrassing for you.

Scott| 2.13.09 @ 6:08AM

Todd:

You nailed it .... Wingnut needs to go clean his garage again! Perhaps it's best he gets to vent here as well.

Bob| 2.13.09 @ 1:19PM

Todd and Ruth, I see you missed me. Although I'm retired, I still do some consulting for former clients who need my services.

Yes, I worked on Wall Street until 2005 when I retired. I can tell you that most Wall Streeters are staunch Republicans (but not social conservatives -- they do have an education, you see). Like the rest of the U.S., they vote their pocketbooks and not their ideology. They generally disliked both McCain and Palin because they thought they were idiots and wanted influence with their money. Influence in 2000 and 2004 was a Republican nominee (and George Bush favored Wall Street), so they gave generously. Most of them could not see McCain/Palin winning so they gave to Obama and Clinton. It is all about money and influence on Wall Street, and not ideology. It has been that way for decades and has not changed as Tyrrell wishes. They go to Wall Street for money and will ride the line of legality without regard for morality. To them, morality has no place on Wall Street. They are paid for financial returns, period.

It is interesting to note that Wall Street donations mirrored that of the rest of the country -- about the same proportions.

Most of you, it seems, have not worked in executive positions for Fortune 100 companies. If you had, you'd know that it is all about the next quarterly results. In the financial services industry, there was virtually no long term planning because the bonus system related to quarterly and annual earnings.

No one here mentioned deregulation, but this is the one item that allowed it all to occur. Regulations are the bible of Wall Street. If the regulations allowed you do do a certain activity, then it was "good".

Again, the money to the candidates had nothing to do with ideology and everything to do with influence. If you understand that, then you wouldn't make the ideological extensions propounded in this article.

Since this will not change, we need appropriate regulations on Wall Street -- not ones that stifle business, but ones that cause responsibility to be part of the equation. For example, requiring originators to keep a portion of the risk or limiting leverage and raising capital requirements. Getting rid of mark to market would be helpful, but not without beefed up financial reporting requirements that made the risk involved obvious to investors.

Todd, you not only need help understanding economic and analytical concepts, but need help understanding the business community as well.

Todd| 2.13.09 @ 6:29PM

Looks like I got wingnuts (jharp?) panties in a bunch. I didn't really know the issue was that capitalism is a big pyramid scheme and communism is much superior but I guess that is always the issue with him.

Now I agree with you Bob that Wall Street will put the money generally with whom they think will win to try to buy influence. I think the point of the article is the opportunists ran wild on Wall Street abetted by government regulations that took away prudence for making loans so they thought they came up with a way around it. Is there some reason we should trust guys like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd to get it right this time? Like the author, I see little reason for optimism.

I do get a kick out of making fun of you with your ubiquitous charts Bob. I find it funny that when the truth of history is so obvious, you will tell everyone to look at a chart that you think proves it wrong though it doesn't really. It should be a relatively easy concept to understand, spending causes deficits not tax cuts especially when revenue rises after tax cuts above inflation. Simple no?

ruth| 2.13.09 @ 6:48PM

Yes, I could see Bob in the middle of this economic mess. He would be with others of his ilk; those without a heart and a conscience. Makes perfect sense.

ruth| 2.13.09 @ 6:56PM

Dwight, this economic mess shows that socialism is dead, after all it was your stupid liberal social engineering policies that have caused this debacle. Socialism never works as an economic system, it's all about a power grab.

Bob| 2.13.09 @ 8:38PM

Well, Todd, once you learn how to read charts, we can have a real discussion. Perhaps you could learn from Ruth. Remember that history is obvious only to simpletons who never look beneath the surface. You remind me of someone who looks out of his front door and exclaims the world is flat. Why? Because it's "obvious".

In the real world, we never get spending cuts whether Dems or Republicans are in charge. That's the obvious history you refuse to see. It takes both revenues and spending to make deficits. If revenues are reduced, then the bottom line is reduced. If spending is increased, then the bottom line is reduced. You need to take a course in Finance 101 to understand a profit and loss statement.

If you can show me a time in history when spending was reduced over an extended period of time, then you'll have a point. Until that time occurs, you're dreaming.

Money is the mother's milk of politics. Those who want to get reelected promise low taxes and that they'll fix everything in their constituent's district. I have yet to see a politician tell their constituents that they need worse roads, worse healthcare, a poorer defense, and lower social security and medicare because then they can keep more of their money. Get real, Todd.

Bob| 2.13.09 @ 8:41PM

One more thing, Todd. If the Republicans were in power right now as they were in 2001-2008, they'd be the ones pushing huge tax cuts and high spending. They proved that over the past 8 years, didn't they.

Todd| 2.13.09 @ 10:26PM

I will say Bob I was greatly disappointed by Bush and the Republicans in recent years, they betrayed the principles of the party of limited government which is why conservatives have been become so disenchanted with the Republican party. You don't have to tell me that spending continues to go up but with the entitlements that have been created, that is the mess that has been created largely through the New Deal and Great Society. Now look at the chart Bob for govt revenue after tax cuts from Reagan and Bush? Did the revenue not get bigger and exceed inflation rates? The fact that Washington has become a ravenous spender on both sides of the aisle (though we both know Democrats will always spend more) does not prove tax cuts don't work. Only reforming the entitlement programs that will bankrupt us no matter how much taxes are increased (especially if taxes are raised in my opinion) and getting serious about limiting the corruption in Washington with the multitude of earmarks and waste.

Too many people in this country are too dumb to comprehend what is happening due to the failure of public schools to properly educate and watching hour upon hour of mindless drivel on TV. So they vote for Obama for "hope and change" and because he is "cool" and don't have the foggiest idea if you ask them about the issues or policy. Watching Frank Lutz question the undecideds just before the election displayed a shocking level of ignorance and stupidity, how can we expect good representatives when the average voter is so ill-informed and ignorant? Politicians think we are dumb and can get away with anything because the truth is that the average person is dumb. We can talk about Wall Street screwing up and Fannie Mae but truth be told, people here have been living far above their means for too long and too many people have nothing to offer to society due to laziness and stupidity. Loans were given to people that had no business getting them and now the law of economics are playing out and no one wants to take the consequences so we get these bailouts and stimulus which only prolongs and deepens the inevitable fall. I blame those institutions for allowing it but it is the effect of corruption and ignorance that has pervaded society. God help us out of this because our politicians sure won't.

I don't have all the answers Bob but I can see plain as day what is happening and where we are headed and it is not good. There is no free lunch but many people think so. Robbing Peter to pay Paul will not work Bob no matter the talk of "targeted stimulus". There is always a day of reckoning and this is just a pathetic attempt to put that day off.

ruth| 2.13.09 @ 10:47PM

I'm with you, Todd. I believe that day of reckoning is coming at us fast. This country is too stupid and too spoiled to see it coming.

Todd| 2.13.09 @ 11:50PM

The day of reckoning has already past unfortunately with the election of Obama and giving the full reins of power to the likes of Pelosi and Reid. They are hellbent though they don't know it into turning a recession into a full blown depression with their big government anti-capitalism schemes. We can hope people will finally wake up and see reality and restore some sanity in the coming elections but stupidity and ignorance is hard to overcome unfortunately. Just have to keep fighting the good fight Ruth and hope for the best.

ruth| 2.14.09 @ 3:01AM

I am talking about the inevitable results. People are not going to know what hit them. Me? I'm all about prayer, all of the time.

HomelessLeRhino| 2.14.09 @ 9:41AM

I heard Rush, Ruth. He as ususualis gonna win it all back without people in the mighty middle. He wants to " thin the herd " of Rinos. Another words he wants to fight with half an Army. Would his beloved Steelers have won by putting just putting up six men vs eleven. You and he just reject the basic political equation in America. I know you folks will never budge, so maybe a third party that can win in the northeast and west coast, etc is the solution. It pushes the democrats back under 50 per cent. and we form workable coalitions. Two parties defeat perhaps.

HomelessLeRhino| 2.14.09 @ 9:43AM

two parties defeat one

bluecollarbytes| 2.14.09 @ 11:17AM

I think there are a number of good points made here, even by some conflicting opinions {minus the Commies}.

The current debacle has many mothers, including political corruption/influence, a waning set of moral beliefs, and blind greed. The greed is blind in my opinion as it evidently obscured the risks from vesting in "complex derivatives" {how could average mortals understand?}.

Are ethics taught in business schools? I'm guessing not.

Bob| 2.14.09 @ 12:34PM

Todd, don't count on politicians of any persuasion to do the right thing. It's all about getting reelected. Reducing spending is a known way of losing. Raising taxes is a known way of losing. Both parties are hypocritical. The only reason Republicans are against this stimulus bill is because it is a political issue. If they had the White House and the votes in Congress, they would pass the same bill as the Democrats. They proved this over the past 8 years. In the same manner, Republicans cannot reduce entitlements because they have an older electorate and more to lose from seniors. Believe it or not, Obama is the only chance to reduce entitlements because his voters are younger. He has already said that reducing entitlements is part of his agenda. Wouldn't that be an irony? So, if Obama is successful in reducing entitlements and making the budget balanced, you'd vote for him, right?????

Todd| 2.14.09 @ 2:50PM

I don't believe it Bob, Obama is a leftist and will only increase the entitlement welfare state. If you really think differently, you need a serious reality check. Obama also said he was going to reduce taxes for 95% of people Bob and that is an outright lie. So when the Bush tax cuts expire and taxes go up for everyone, how is that going to be spun? Sending everyone below a certain income a rebate check is not a tax cut Bob, just an attempt to buy votes that will do nothing for the economy. Not that I will not take it but I see it for what it is. Obama balancing the budget? You really are drinking the kool-aid Bob, Obama is going to increase the deficit more in his first term than both terms of Bush I will guarantee you. The way things are going now, I think around $5 trillion will be added to the deficit in the next 4 years. Keynesian economics is going to take us further down the black hole. Not to mention inflation that is bound to happen and the devaluation of the dollar.

Did Bush not try to reform social security with private accounts??? It wasn't the Republicans who blocked it Bob, it was guys like Ted Kennedy who will never allow it with their distortions and propaganda. I still remember Al Gore talking about the lock-box for social security and wondering how anyone could believe that. As I stated in my previous post, the stupidity and ignorance of the average voter is really to blame for believing such nonsense propaganda. Its the weekend so I will enjoy it now and forget about the sorry state of this country because it is depressing.

Bob| 2.14.09 @ 3:08PM

Todd, you do realize that if people had private accounts when Bush proposed it, their accounts would be worth half the value they are today. The market is far too complex for the majority of people so private accounts is a bad idea for social security. Like all ideas that seem good on the surface, this one would have unexpected side effects like more people losing their money and needing Medicaid when they are older. It could well have the effect of actually costing more, not less.

In terms of the 95%, I do believe Obama will stick to that promise. He knows, as I've been saying, you are not going to balance the budget through discretionary spending -- it is far too low. You can only balance the budget through entitlements. Given that the majority of elders now vote for Republicans, I do believe he might accomplish this because it will appeal to the younger voters. It has nothing to do with being right -- it has everything to do with politics. That's why he might do it. Republicans will lose big time if they even talk about reforming social security and medicare. Think about it.

Again, will you vote for Obama if the economy comes back and he reforms social security and medicare? That's what you want, isn't it?

ruth| 2.14.09 @ 4:42PM

You can't spend your way out of debt, Bob. I thought you were astute--I thought wrong. It didn't work for FDR's Great Depression and it won't work now. It's counter-intuitive.

Bob| 2.14.09 @ 4:52PM

Ruthie, if you've been reading my posts you'd see that I'm not a big fan of the stimulus. I just said that tax cuts don't work either. I'm for a minimal amount of spending in things like infrastructure and a cut in payroll taxes which should be spent quickly. I do like some of the items that address the housing crisis, however. Neither party recommended what I would do since I take a non-ideological position. I just want the items that will increase consumption and/or get into the economy quickly. I wouldn't call some of the items in the bill pork, however they should be in other appropriation bills and not this one.

Anytime government tries to solve a market issue, they tend to mess it up. That goes for both Democrats AND Republicans. Keep the playing field fair, make sure that people are forced to pay for their bad decisions, and let the market work its way.

And by the way, spending DID help FDR as unemployment dropped significantly after his programs were put into place. As I explained before, they calculated unemployment differently then than they do now. Google the unemployment data from 1932-1936 and you'll see what I mean. FDR made other mistakes, however, as we all know today.

Nick| 2.14.09 @ 6:58PM

Bob,

This is part of a post I wrote in an earlier thread you never responded to:
"I don't really care if tax cuts raise revenues or not. I'm for lower taxes based on principle, something you mushy moderates wouldn't understand, because you're so pragmatic. So enough with [the] economics slight-of-hand, mumbo jumbo.

"This country got along just fine without any income tax for 137 years. And when it was enacted, the top rate was 7% on incomes above $500k, in 1913! Less than 1% paid any income tax whatsoever.

"Instead of supporting a balanced budget amendment, why not support the repeal of the 16th amendment? If you really "favor a much less interventionalist agenda" like you wrote.

"Not that either has a chance of passing at the moment. That's why all income taxes should be cut to where they were in 1913. Adjusted for inflation of course. Especially the per child deduction."

Care to comment?
Alot of that spending was found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme court, by the way. But it did help FDR-THE WORST PRESIDENT IN THE WOOOORLD!!!

ruth| 2.14.09 @ 11:46PM

Lower tax rates ALWAYS work because money is better spent when it remains in the hands of fewer people. Individual investment and job creation lead to greater growth and prosperity. Government bureaucracy has so many layers that it takes a dollar to spend a dollar. Hugely wasteful and inefficient. It shows lack of trust for the people--but we already know that about liberals. They are all about power all of the time. This ain't rocket science, people.

Bob| 2.15.09 @ 9:05AM

Nick, you could believe the earth was flat based on "principle". But I prefer to use reason and pragmatism to evaluate complex environments because none of us knows all. I consider your position as unreasoned and unsupported by fact. What you should consider is that if a result is not consistent with your ideology, you call it "mumbo jumbo". I believe in using analysis and reason to find the truth -- and then deal with it.

The U.S. is a different place today than it was when the country started. We have changed from an agrarian society which was self supporting to a manufacturing society to a centralized, urban service society. People no longer grow their own food, make their own clothes, milk their own cows, etc. We all have specialized skills and there are no general jobs. As this transition occurs, the government must provide an infrastructure to bind all of us together. This includes transportation, financial, national defense, etc. I agree that government needs to be made smaller, but from an anthropological point of view, as we continue down this path of specialization, it will get larger. Our job is to keep it as small as possible and still keep the functionality.

In terms of taxes, I believe in personal responsibility -- one of the tenets of true conservatism. How can it be responsible to spend without the money to back it up? The electorate must bear the responsibility of spending by paying for it. My hope is that bearing this cost will force them to demand that some services are cut. It has not worked the other way as I have proven.

Ruth, facts don't back up your statement. But when have facts ever backed up your statements?

ruth| 2.15.09 @ 4:15PM

It's called common sense, Bob, something you've never understood.

Nick| 2.15.09 @ 8:42PM

Bob,

Exactly what "principle" would that be? Any other straw men you'd like throw up?

No, I call it "mumbo-jumbo" because economics can't predict anything, making it more art than science. It's like climate science, you can measure certain things that have already happened, but that is about it. There are too many variables that can't be measured to make any concrete conclusions. Hence your battle of the charts.

But again, I don't care if lower taxes create deficits and reduce revenues, as you claim it will. Whatever I earn through my hard work is mine. The federal government is only entitled to enough money to do the things it is empowered to by the constitution. These are called conservative principles Bob. You are willing to compromise your principles to be pragmatic, I'm not.

How is it responsible to steal money from me and waste it on things that are unconstitutional? You can hope in one hand, and spit in the other, which will fill up first? And the facts are taxes were much higher in the past and there was no demand for a cut in services. Spending continued to grow under a 70% top tax rate, so why do you hope. You are the one ignoring the facts to fit your ideology, Bob.

ruth| 2.16.09 @ 12:00AM

Nick, when you figure out Bob's ideology, will you explain it to me, please? I still can't draw a bead on the guy, except that he hates Governor Palin and her daughter, Bristol.

Nick| 2.16.09 @ 1:26AM

Ruth,

Ha-hah!! Agreed!

Although if I had to name it, I would say Bob's ideology is narcissism. Like so many, he can't admit to even the possibilty he might be wrong, or was wrong, about anything. And we all need to conform to him to be a successful party again.

Bob| 2.16.09 @ 7:22AM

Nick, principles are based on paradigms that work. Principles based on beliefs that contradict fact is the definition of stupidity. My GOAL is the same as yours. If I'm going to give money to the government, I want to get a return on that money. Furthermore, I believe that politicians will never reduce spending because that's how they get votes. One of my principles is that people should be responsible. If you are going to spend money, you should be able to afford it. Getting something for nothing is NOT a conservative principle. Therefore, cutting taxes while increasing spending is neither responsible or conservative. It is far more conservative to say that we will pay for what we spend. I call that a principled view. Your view is trying to get something for nothing.

Now, as a TRUE conservative, I believe we need to focus on spending, not tax cutting. If we can't reduce spending, we don't reduce taxes because all we are doing is putting a debt burden on our children which I believe is unconsciencable.

That's why I consider your position to be unprincipled and immoral.

Nick| 2.16.09 @ 11:00AM

Bob,

As I stated, history shows your paradigm doesn't work. The top rate has been as high as 90% and 70% in the past and spending still increased.

And I don't think you believe it works either.
Bob : "Furthermore, I believe that politicians will never reduce spending ..."
AND
Bob: "...I believe we need to focus on spending..."
Why should we focus on spending if politicians will never reduce it?

My position is not lower taxes and increased spending. So to say I want something for nothing is just another straw man. I want both cut, drastically. In the late 90's the Republican congress finally got bubba the pervert to stay within the budget caps. That was a start. It showed you could balance the budget and slow the growth in spending.

It's too bad compassionate conservatives, like yourself, were so pragmatic and preceded to bust the caps at will.

Bob| 2.16.09 @ 11:38AM

Nick, I live in the real world where there is no incentive for politicians to reduce spending. Therefore, your position of reducing taxes is both selfish and immoral. Yes, I also want lower taxes, but only if we balance the budget. That will ONLY be done if it is forced by law. In the 90's, the primary reason we balanced the budget was the dotcom boom and increased revenues thereto. It had little to do with the politicians on either side. If you believe it did, then I've got several older bridges to sell you.

By the way, I have no compassion for what the Republican Congress and Republican President did to spending caps for the last 8 years. It would be hard to call me compassionate given my views.

Nick| 2.16.09 @ 12:29PM

Bob,

I see you've dropped the "My hope is that bearing this cost will force them to demand that some services are cut." nonsense, when confronted with the history.

Why can't you deal with what I wrote, Bob? I said lower both taxes and spending! Why do you keep repeating this straw man?

How is it "selfish and immoral" to not want my hard earned money stolen and figuratively flushed down the toilet? Countries won't buy our debt forever. Then the only way to spend is to print FRN's, causing inflation. If the people keep voting in thieves who won't rein in spending, then you get the government you deserve. The answer is not to give up, but to stick to conservative principles. All of them, Bob.

Bob| 2.16.09 @ 1:03PM

Nick, I still believe we ought to pay for what we get so I have not dropped my position that people should bear the cost of the spending. The reason your position is selfish and immoral is that it has only resulted in raising the debt for our children while letting you underpay for the services you receive.

And no, you cannot change the nature of elected officials. They will always try to bring home the bacon to their constituents whether they are Republicans or Democrats. You don't get elected for bringing home nothing. That's why spending will never be cut voluntarily. Elections are all about "what's in it for me?" Republicans have won because they continue spending but reduce taxes. That's called pandering and that's exactly what your mindset leads to. There is absolutely no evidence to the contrary. To believe otherwise is a fairy tale.

Nick| 2.16.09 @ 1:42PM

Bob,

The part you dropped was that higher taxes "...will force them to demand that some services are cut." You had to because history shows your premise is false. But you would rather obfuscate than admit an error.

How does cutting SPENDING and taxes "raise the debt for our children"? Why must you continuously lie about my position, Bob?

Bob| 2.16.09 @ 2:21PM

Yes, Nick, I believe that higher taxes will eventually push more individuals to think about smaller government. That's what a balanced budget amendment is all about.

I said greater spending and cutting taxes raises the debt for our children and I believe that is immoral. This occurred with both Reagan and Bush. Since spending is never reduced no matter who is in charge, your position results in an immoral act. That's not a lie, it is reality. To believe otherwise is fantasy. Capish?

Nick| 2.16.09 @ 3:23PM

Bob,

"...I BELIEVE that higher taxes will eventually push more individuals to think about smaller government." (emphasis mine). So your beliefs trump the facts. As you said Bob: "Principles based on beliefs that contradict fact is the definition of stupidity."

You continually lied about my position.
Bob @ 7:22AM: "Therefore, cutting taxes while increasing spending is neither responsible or conservative."
Nick @11:00AM: "My position is not lower taxes and increased spending."
Bob @ 11:38AM: "Therefore, your position of reducing taxes is both selfish and immoral."
Nick @12:29PM: "I said lower both taxes and spending!"
Bob @1:03PM: "The reason your position is selfish and immoral is that it has only resulted in raising the debt for our children while letting you underpay for the services you receive."
Nick @1:42PM: "How does cutting SPENDING and taxes 'raise the debt for our children'?"

And now, after all the lying, because BOB SAYS spending will never be reduced, all of us have to bow to BOB and accept it, and magically my position fits Bob's lies.

You're a coward Bob.

Bob| 2.16.09 @ 3:28PM

Nick, I see comprehension is not one of your stronger attributes. Let me say it again, SPENDING IS NEVER REDUCED. If you promote tax cuts while not cutting spending, it is an immoral act as it puts the burden on our children. That's what Reagan did. That's what Bush did. And it is wrong. You must cut spending first -- which is NOT your position. You would lower taxes without lowering spending, wouldn't you? You approved of Reagan's and Bush's tax cuts, didn't you? That's the part that is immoral.

Nick| 2.16.09 @ 4:50PM

Bob,

I admit it, I misunderstood the point you were making about cutting taxes and not spending. I apologize for calling you a liar and a coward.

I totally forgot how I started this off by writing how I didn't care if cutting taxes raises deficits. I then fixated on what I believed was your assertion that I'm not for cutting spending. Your last post clarified your point for me. This is what blogging on no sleep looks like. I was wrong, hope you accept my apology.

I do stand by this point though: "...I BELIEVE that higher taxes will eventually push more individuals to think about smaller government." (emphasis mine). So your beliefs trump the facts. As you said Bob: "Principles based on beliefs that contradict fact is the definition of stupidity."

To answer your questions, if I were in congress I wouldn't vote for any increase in spending or taxes, period. I did approve of the tax cuts. This was before the war though. After 9/11, I still wanted them to stick to the spending caps. When OIF commenced, I wanted sacrifice in the form of massive spending cuts. The Republicans blew it.

Finally, I believe stealing people's hard earned money and saddling our posterity with huge debt are both immoral. Which is more? Until recently deficits and the debt, as a percentage of GDP, were not any worse than they have been historically. According to conservative economists I've heard over the years. And I think history shows raising taxes is not the answer in this climate.

ruth| 2.17.09 @ 12:39AM

OMG, I think suicide is the only solution.

ruth| 2.17.09 @ 12:42AM

Wow! Nick is a man of integrity, and that's a rare find these days. My hat's off to you, sir. Did you figure him out yet? If you did, please share. Thanks so much, Ruth

Nick| 2.17.09 @ 2:53PM

Ruth,

Thank you for the compliment. I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong. I'm not going to twist myself into a pretzel of illogical statements trying to defend something I know is wrong. I'm far from perfect and make mistakes all the time.

Check out my post of 2.16.09 @ 1:26AM for my theory on Bob. Thanks again Ruth.

P.S.- I'm confused, why is suicide the only solution?

Bob| 2.17.09 @ 5:30PM

Nick, I believe we have an impasse. You believe it is possible for politicians to significantly cut spending, and I think their history tells us they won't because spending gets them votes. Therefore, if they can continue to spend, and cut taxes at the same time, you, as a constituent, are getting something for nothing. It's easy for Republicans to vote against the spending bill right now because they know it is going to pass. When they were in charge for most of the past 8 years, they would have never voted against this. Remember that almost all of the Republican governors are for this stimulus bill. Palin even lobbied for funds when she was in Washington.

Therefore, we are not going to agree on this. I really wish you were right, but history proves not.

I still believe the ONLY way to get them to cut spending is a balanced budget amendment and the only fair tax is a flat tax. I dislike Washington pols pulling the strings and believe we should leave that up to the markets and the individuals.

I'm afraid people like Ruth really don't understand fiscal conservatism. There is a real split between true fiscal conservatism and social conservatism because one relies on reason and the other on belief.

ruth| 2.17.09 @ 8:09PM

Bob, I take no counsel from you. You lost any respect I might have had for you a long time ago. Buzz off, bozo.

ruth| 2.17.09 @ 8:11PM

Nick, just for a second there--after glancing over more and more words between you and Bob--I despaired. Then I recovered.

ruth| 2.17.09 @ 8:14PM

Nick, there is no 2/16 @ 1:26 AM post from you. Now I'm confused.

Nick| 2.17.09 @ 9:35PM

Ruth,

Now I get it! Forgive me, I'm can also be slow.

Nick| 2.17.09 @ 9:41PM

Ruth,

That's weird, because the post comes up for me.
Hear, I'll just copy and paste:

Nick| 2.16.09 @ 1:26AM
Ruth,

Ha-hah!! Agreed!

Nick| 2.17.09 @ 9:43PM

Ironic, huh Ruth?

ruth| 2.17.09 @ 11:53PM

Nick, I'm a freak--I found your post. Yes, narcissism, egocentrism. Makes sense--he can't see himself, has no humility. That's why appearances are so important to him and why Palin irritates him so much. I believe Palin is truly courageous because not only did she encourage her daughter to choose life over abortion, she also chose to have Trig--who is handicapped. Perhaps many men don't get this, but for a successful, highly visible woman like Palin, abortion would have been an easy solution. Regardless of any other quality/accomplishment the governor may have; she will always be aces in my eyes for her exceptional goodness. She is rare, and she has won my devotion. That's why I defend her--I know that she knows the Lord. Cool, cool woman.

Nick| 2.18.09 @ 12:35AM

Ruth,

Couldn't agree more!
I remember when she beat Murkowski. I didn't follower her as gov. or even know her name when McCain picked her. But I remembered she had beat that load Murkowski in the primary and went on to win the governor's race. That's my kind of Republican.

And it's one thing to say your pro-life, like too many RINO's do, quite another to back it up with action. That's why the liberals hate her guts, she reminds them to their cores the choices they've made.

ruth| 2.18.09 @ 1:43AM

Agreed. She personifies their regrets. A lot of repubs hate her, too, for the same reason. Nice talking to you, Nick.

Bob| 2.18.09 @ 8:31AM

Nick, under your definition, 99% of the posters here would be narcissists -- including the people who write the articles. Ruth has NEVER admitted she was wrong and doesn't understand narcissism.

By the way, Nick, when Michigan-Matt corrected me yesterday I agreed with him because his response was factual. You need to be objective in your responses -- that's what's wrong with most of the posters here.

Ruth personifies the lack of objectivity and knowledge that is hurting the Republican Party. You and I have a difference of opinion. You believe that politicians can reduce spending and I believe, for structural reasons, they will never reduce spending unless forced by law. My opinion is substantiated by fact and yours is a belief that has never occurred in reality.

Nick| 2.18.09 @ 1:51PM

Bob,

Like you said earlier, we are at an impasse. I just wanted you to accept my apology. And I wasn't trying to redefine narcissism, I was just listing some consequences of it.

I said earlier I thought your balanced budget amendment had as much chance of passing as my repeal of the 16th, none. I guess I look at this from a philosophical point of view, rather than empirical.

As a student of history, I know the pattern of free and prosperous societies. They struggle, adopt a code, prosper, get wealthy and decadent, reject their code, and finally decline. Ancient Israel repeated this pattern over and over again. When they were suffering and in decline, the Isrealites would beg for forgiveness and would recover.

Just over 100 years ago, as this nation rose in wealth and power, it began it's rejection of English common law. So I don't see us recovering, if ever, until the suffering becomes great enough to cause repentance. If not, we will go the way of the Romans. I remain hopeful, even though the Great Depression wasn't enough to cause conversion.

You believe high taxes will cause enough suffering to start the restoration. We've had them in the past and things got worse. All I see are two wrongs, i.e. inreased taxes and spending. Why not have just one wrong and put all our energy into reversing it?

Bob| 2.18.09 @ 2:31PM

Listen, Nick, you may be right that this is the Titanic and we can't turn fast enough to avoid the iceberg. I would like you to be right, but our politicians are elected by the votes of an uneducated electorate that favors personality over intelligence and competence. You can't significantly cut the budget without cutting social security and medicare. Republicans should be far more likely to do that, but currently Republican voters are older and will vote against anyone who tries to touch these items. Ironically, all the talk about cutting these programs has come from Obama, not the Republicans. It makes sense for Obama as he is appealing to the younger voters with this message.

As I've said before, there is an anthropological reason for our society becoming more government driven -- the transformation from agrarian to industrial to a service economy. This transformation leads to more specialization and thus more need for centralized government.

I do believe there is a fundamental tenet of conservatism and libertarianism that talks to personal responsibility. Having higher spending without paying for it breaks that tenet. I don't believe there is any gain without the requisite pain. If you look at effective tax rates, rather than marginal rates, you'll see that the effective rates are between 20-22%. Remember that marginal rates affect very few people and they have huge write-offs that make that rate more acceptable. You might find this chart interesting:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/53xx/doc5324/04-02-TaxRates.htm

Most people here confuse marginal rates with what most people actually pay. When Reagan lowered the marginal rate, he only lowered the effective rate by about 2%. It was not huge. But most people who are untrained in economics wouldn't realize this.

I'm for a flat tax that includes social security and medicare since their trust funds are fictional anyway. I'm also for personal responsibility which demands that we pay for what we spend. I believe that is a principled view.

ruth| 2.18.09 @ 2:41PM

Wow, now Bob is channeling Freud. Who knew? Well, anybody besides Bob, that is. Bob, you fight with everyone here (except liberals, hmmm), I don't. You're just a hater who loves to fight. And, yes, you are a narcissist big time. In fact, just the other day, I was looking up the word, narcissist, in the dictionary, and dang if your face wasn't right next to the word. Imagine that.

Bob| 2.18.09 @ 2:48PM

Hey, Ruthie, you just fight with people who disagree with you. And you are absolutely right. I love a good fight. But with you, since there is no substance, there is little reason to fight.

Nick| 2.18.09 @ 3:14PM

Bob,

On the flat tax, we may agree. If there has to be an income tax it should be flat, with no deductions, not even mortgage interest.

On the fiction of the trust funds we also agree. I'm for lifting the earnings cap on SS, believe it or not. SS is welfare. But when FICA taxes were raised in '83?, to 15.3%, there was no outrage that they were now taking in, I believe it was 12 times, what they needed for SS benefits. All because of the myth of the trust fund. I forget what it is now, I think it's 3 times.

My parents ran a small business as I grew up, so I know something about the burden of taxes and regulations. I'm not an expert, but I know more than the average person. I don't know alot about macro economics, I'll admit. So that's where I'm coming from, I want taxes to be fair and just.

Bob| 2.18.09 @ 3:55PM

Well, Nick, it seems we agree on a number of things. My parents were low level hourly workers. We had no friends or relatives who were professionals or even graduated from college. School was my way out of a very poor neighborhood. That's why I value education so highly. No one helped or mentored me until I served in the Army after college. That's one of the reasons I value military service so much. It was a place you could succeed based on performance and merit.

Growing up, I knew little about business or professions. But having spent the last 35 years in large, multi-national companies as an executive, I know a great deal about large business, consumer behavior, and macroeconomics from a mass perspective.

That's one of the things I like about Palin -- she is self made. For that matter, I admire Obama for the same reason. However, the knowledge thing really rubs me the wrong way.

In business, in order to be successful with new businesses, we had to look at the data objectively. In politics, neither side looks at the information objectively. That's why I prefer charts and graphs over time rather than stated statistics. I can pick two points in time for virtually any President and call them a success or a failure. But you can't look at annual data graphed and do the same. That's why people like Ferrara and most of the writers here grate me the wrong way.

OK, time to get off of the soapbox. Take care.

ruth| 2.18.09 @ 6:09PM

Everybody grates you the wrong way--why don't you just leave? Nothing more unattractive than a know it all prig with poor people skills, in essence, you, Bob.

Bob| 2.19.09 @ 7:45AM

I'm here for you, Ruthie. By the way, I thought you were going to ignore me...

ruth| 2.22.09 @ 4:19PM

Leave me alone, you fool.

hgj| 11.24.09 @ 9:03PM

DVD Copier For Mac,
DVD To DVD Copier Mac